I get the very distinct impression that even before Johnathan Majors started making things difficult for them, they never had a way of figuring out how to handle the whole Kang and multiple universes angle.
I said before the film was released that I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be the point at which the MCU would have it’s just major wobble because it was a bunch of character nobody outside of the fandom really knew anything about.
I was profoundly wrong about that, it’s still the best MCU film (by some distance) in part because it just gets on being its own thing without having to do any major overarching plot lifting and just introduces the characters. The only link is using the Infinity Stone, and that was as far as it went.
Since then it’s felt like all the new movies have had to had that tie in, and I don’t always think it works. It bogs everything down - either having to shoehorn it in, or leaving you with the feeling that’s it’s missing if it’s not included.
I watched The Marvels in one sitting from start to finish without fast forwarding once. That’s the best compliment I have given a Marvel product in quite a while.
It does not make a lot of sense a lot of the time (I am sure I can’t be the first one who was bothered by the loose body swapping rules), but at least Iman Vellani (Kamala) is fantastic. She steals the show every single scene she is in. Give me more of her and I’d be happy. I’m a bit sad that it bombed at the box office. I wonder what Disney’s conclusion is and what the results will be. I’m afraid it means we won’t get a standalone Ms. Marvel movie in the future.
When has any project with poc women and even worse Muslim main characters ever had domestic success?
Yeah, I can't help but think that a movie like this, with a basically entirely female lead cast (sorry, Samuel L. Jackson, but Nick Fury was--I think rightly--sidelined a bit in The Marvels.), including an outspoken feminist Oscar winner, a black Julliard grad, an incandescent young Muslim woman, and the granddaughter of a President and later Prime Minister of Uganda, did not go over well with the stereotypical Marvel fan. Oh, and let's not forget the amazing Nia DaCosta directing.
As for me, it's the first Marvel movie I have purchased in years, so I guess that says enough about what I thought of it.
let's not forget the amazing Nia DaCosta directing.
Lets? The actors were doing what they could but the execution of the film was all over the place and that falls on the director.
When has any project with poc women and even worse Muslim main characters ever had domestic success?
It did briefly... Had the largest domestic opening for the month of november. It just couldn't compete with others internationally and it had the highest customer rating on review sites...
I watched 'The Marvels' last week, and quite enjoyed it. It's clearly positioned at the lighter 'Thor - Love and Thunder' end of the Marvel cinematic universe (as opposed to the Endgame end), but absolutely no worse for being there.
Indeed, I agree that Iman Vellani is fantastic, and the presence of Ms Marvel's family in the film really gives it heart. And I'd love to give a shoutout too to the continued inclusion of Goose the flerken.
However, I can see why it struggled at the box office. It is quite confusing. For example, I'd argue that you'd need to be pretty deep into Marvel lore to understand why there are two characters with Marvel in their names. And to understand who Captain Rambeau is.
Similarly, it wasn't really clear what powers the 3 heroes had, so I couldn't really understand what was happening during the many (many) fights. I didn't know, for example, what Captain Rambeau's strengths and weaknesses were. And I couldn't really tell what were the limits - if any - of Captain Marvel's powers.
And I think that this links to 'The Marvels' biggest problem. It requires a the viewer to have done an awful lot of homework. It is almost unintelligible unless you've watched not only 'Captain Marvel', but also the 'WandaVision' and 'Ms Marvel' tv series too. That's something like 7 hours of content. That might be fine for aficionados with Disney+ subscriptions, but its probably a lot to ask of a more general audience.
One of the reasons why the Bond franchise has always been so successful is that you didn't have to watched every previous film to enjoy the current one. (Arguably, this changed - and for the worse - with Casino Royale (2006).) You'd get the odd Easter Egg-like reference to previous films, but they weren't essential viewing.
Marvel's current approach to story-telling is almost the exact opposite of the old approach to Bond. And it leaves the audience flailing.
You're making the classic network TV vs prestige serialized TV argument.
Tune in every week for Cheers... people at a bar, drinking. Nothing ever changes so you can even watch reruns out of order.
Watch the Wire, where the entire season is built around one case and is really just a cool 10 hour story across 13 episodes.
I think that what Marvel/Disney are doing with Marvel (and to a similar extent, Star Wars) goes beyond an argument about classic vs prestige TV. Indeed, I don't think there's any modern equivalent to it.
For example, I read Marvel comics for much of the early- to late-80s, and it was vanishingly rare that an event spanned the entire Marvel Universe. I can think only of the first Secret Wars story in the time that I was a consumer. And even then, you didn't actually have to have read the Secret Wars mini-series to enjoy your favourite comics afterwards. (I don't think Secret Wars was released in the UK at the time, so I couldn't read it.) Things basically picked up where they left off, pre-Secret Wars.
Similarly, appearances by one character in the comic book of another character were rare and notable delights (apart from Marvel Team Up, of course). But now, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, these kinds of appearances happen in every property. This all reached an interim apotheosis in Spiderman No Way Home with all 3 cinematic Spidermen appearing on screen together. I say "interim" because the current Multiverse storyline seems to promise to turn this up to 11.
I think that what Marvel/Disney are doing with Marvel (and to a similar extent, Star Wars) goes beyond an argument about classic vs prestige TV. Indeed, I don't think there's any modern equivalent to it.
For example, I read Marvel comics for much of the early- to late-80s, and it was vanishingly rare that an event spanned the entire Marvel Universe. I can think only of the first Secret Wars story in the time that I was a consumer. And even then, you didn't actually have to have read the Secret Wars mini-series to enjoy your favourite comics afterwards. (I don't think Secret Wars was released in the UK at the time, so I couldn't read it.) Things basically picked up where they left off, pre-Secret Wars.
Similarly, appearances by one character in the comic book of another character were rare and notable delights (apart from Marvel Team Up, of course). But now, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, these kinds of appearances happen in every property. This all reached an interim apotheosis in Spiderman No Way Home with all 3 cinematic Spidermen appearing on screen together. I say "interim" because the current Multiverse storyline seems to promise to turn this up to 11.
You are definitely forgetting how it was then and even more so in the 90s. Crossovers nonstop.
However, I can see why it struggled at the box office. It is quite confusing. For example, I'd argue that you'd need to be pretty deep into Marvel lore to understand why there are two characters with Marvel in their names. And to understand who Captain Rambeau is.
Do you say this because you hadn't seen the other properties and felt lost, or because you are guessing that someone who hadn't seen them would be confused? Because...
Similarly, it wasn't really clear what powers the 3 heroes had, so I couldn't really understand what was happening during the many (many) fights. I didn't know, for example, what Captain Rambeau's strengths and weaknesses were. And I couldn't really tell what were the limits - if any - of Captain Marvel's powers.
This is explicitly spelled out twenty minutes into the movie, in a scene with Captain Rambeau explaining to Kamala's family how their powers are related. "Captain Marvel can absorb light energy. I can see it, and you [Kamala] can turn it into physical matter, which I have never heard of." Shortly thereafter she explains to Carol that she can "manipulate and see all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum." Another plot point of the movie is that Captain Rambeau doesn't really know the extent of her powers. For example, she figures out how to fly because she must fly to prevent Kamala turning into Ms. Marvel Pancake.
That said, I can see how that explanation might be easy to miss, because the conversation happens immediately after a crazy extended location-swapping fight sequence.
The conclusion of the movie should leave no doubt about the limits of Captain Marvel's powers (there pretty much aren't any). Feige said during the Captain Marvel press tour that she is probably the most powerful character in the MCU to that point. Captain Marvel is right up there with the cosmic characters in the Marvel pantheon--characters who can destroy entire planets on a whim. Even by eating them.
Also, the backstory of each character is explained not by exposition (like the powers are), but by flashbacks outlining their history. Now granted, the flashbacks are brief, and they don't hold the viewer's hand at all.
The movie as a whole moves pretty fast, and audiences need to pay attention to get all the details. I suspect someone new to the characters might miss some things in a first viewing, especially if they're expecting some light comic book character entertainment. But I think all the information is there. TBH, it's one of the reasons I like Nia DaCosta's direction--she trusts the audience to keep up. It's nice for a change.
BUT
I have been marinating in MCU lore since 2008. So I'm not the best persion to gauge how The Marvels might confuse a new, casual viewer.
You are definitely forgetting how it was then and even more so in the 90s. Crossovers nonstop.
It’s actually gotten worse since the 90’s, since the 00’s there’s a big event that spans the entire universe almost every year and multiple events each year that span several titles or involve multiple teams.
detroit20 wrote:I think that what Marvel/Disney are doing with Marvel (and to a similar extent, Star Wars) goes beyond an argument about classic vs prestige TV. Indeed, I don't think there's any modern equivalent to it.
For example, I read Marvel comics for much of the early- to late-80s, and it was vanishingly rare that an event spanned the entire Marvel Universe. I can think only of the first Secret Wars story in the time that I was a consumer. And even then, you didn't actually have to have read the Secret Wars mini-series to enjoy your favourite comics afterwards. (I don't think Secret Wars was released in the UK at the time, so I couldn't read it.) Things basically picked up where they left off, pre-Secret Wars.
Similarly, appearances by one character in the comic book of another character were rare and notable delights (apart from Marvel Team Up, of course). But now, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, these kinds of appearances happen in every property. This all reached an interim apotheosis in Spiderman No Way Home with all 3 cinematic Spidermen appearing on screen together. I say "interim" because the current Multiverse storyline seems to promise to turn this up to 11.
You are definitely forgetting how it was then and even more so in the 90s. Crossovers nonstop.
We talked about this months ago back up thread.
And I'm never getting tired of Jackman's Wolverine.
Thanks for the detailed reply, BadKen.
To be clear, I have watched all of the other Marvel content that I mentioned. Some pieces more than once. And I was still confused.
Monica Rambeau's 'explanation' of their respective powers really wasn't an explanation of any real value. It was more of a handwave. For example, what does "can manipulate and see all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum" actually mean in practice? Does it mean that she can communicate with people over long distances without using electronic equipment? Does it mean that she can see hidden things through walls? Does it mean that she can use microwaves to cook her enemies from the inside? She doesn't do anything of these things in the film.
But more importantly for the humble viewer, how do we know what electromagnetic radiation she is using at any time and what she is using it for?
For example, in the fight on the water planet Monica fires a blue-white beam from her hand sending Dar Benn flying through the air. Then she makes herself - for want of a better phrase - intangible without becoming invisible. Then she fires another 'light' beam. Then she herself is blasted away hundreds of feet by a shockwave, seemingly unable to become intangible again. And yet she returns to fight uninjured. What abilities is she summoning to accomplish these feats?
In the moment, it's all very action-y and exciting, but it's also largely unintelligible.
You're entirely correct about the way that the characters' backstories are told. I just don't think they are told very well. In particular, I don't think we're introduced to Kamala Khan's family properly. They are given a fair amount of screen time and dialogue, but the dynamics of that family only make sense if you've seen the tv show.
"The movie as a whole moves pretty fast, and audiences need to pay attention to get all the details. I suspect someone new to the characters might miss some things in a first viewing, especially if they're expecting some light comic book character entertainment. But I think all the information is there."
The trouble for The Marvels, of course, is that for much of the cinema audience their "first viewing" is their only viewing. It is the job of the film-maker to ensure that that one-and-done audience gets the full experience from that viewing... if only to ensure that word-of-mouth about the film is positive.
Monica doesn't know the limits of her powers herself, even if she theoretically knows what they should be, as demonstrated when she said she'd never flown before despite knowing that she can.
It is the job of the film-maker to ensure that that one-and-done audience gets the full experience from that viewing... if only to ensure that word-of-mouth about the film is positive.
I disagree with this bit. At this point no one is coming into the newest installment of the MCU having never seen any of the past entries, so I don't think it's the filmmakers job to ensure that such a hypothetical person gets the full experience. I don't disagree that it can cause problems with people who aren't already invested in the MCU not liking it as much, but I think the MCU is better served when the filmakers assume that the people watching the new MCU thing have seen the previous MCU things they're referencing. Use their limited minutes to tell a more complete new story rather than continuously retreading events from past ones just to make sure every viewer is up to speed.
What you're witnessing is the late stage of the general axiom that any franchise that involves personal combat will, over a long enough time scale, ultimately become Dragonball Z.
My podcast partner and I noticed it in our DCAU rewatch ( shameless plug ). When it was just Batman, most fights were more or less realistic, bar a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief for things like using the Batgrapple not pulling Bats' arm out of its socket, any injuries healing quickly, and a bop on the head rendering someone unconscious for exactly as long as the plot demanded with no other ill effects.
Come Superman, there were a lot more superpowered villains, but each one still typically got an entire episode to set up the origins of their powers and, if they were more complicated than "strong and sturdy enough to trade blows with Supes," exactly what their extent and limitations were.
Come Justice League, and that's out the window. Characters with elaborate power sets are regularly introduced with no explanation and no origin except occasionally gesturing in the general direction of "some kind of mutant" only without actually using the M-word because that's a Marvel thing. Our episode recap segments often end, "and then they punch each other for five minutes and the good guys lose until it's time for them to win."
Powers are often inconsistent. There's this one guy called Shade who can blanket large areas in darkness. It is never explained if this ability is technological or biological or supernatural. Sometimes his buddies have these green goggles that let them see through it, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes it seems to be actual darkness that cannot be banished by any means other than disabling him, and sometimes it seems to be some kind of mist or smoke that can be blown away by wind. If you want to know the details, well, too bad: this is no longer that kind of show.
That's where the MCU is at now, and it didn't start with the Marvels: it goes back at least as far as the first Antman, where they carefully explain that shrunken objects maintain their mass and then immediately throw that rule out the window multiple times in the same movie.
All of which is to say that it's not a problem unique to the MCU, although this may be the first time it's been seen on this scale outside of comics and animation.
I disagree with this bit. At this point no one is coming into the newest installment of the MCU having never seen any of the past entries, so I don't think it's the filmmakers job to ensure that such a hypothetical person gets the full experience. I don't disagree that it can cause problems with people who aren't already invested in the MCU not liking it as much, but I think the MCU is better served when the filmakers assume that the people watching the new MCU thing have seen the previous MCU things they're referencing...
I have bolded the phrases that I think gets to the heart of this issue, and Marvel's current challenges. There is a huge gap between 'having never seen any' and having "seen the previous MCU things they're referencing".
I don't know the exact count, but I believe that they are more than 30 movies and at least half-a-dozen TV series in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And crucially, there are a significant number of shows that have only ever been available on Disney +. That's a lot of content.
I don't disagree that the average cinema-goer may well have seen - say - at least one Avengers movie and a Captain Marvel. But I think its a stretch to assume that they'll also have seen the associated TV shows. It's not immediately obvious to me that the people buying tickets to Marvel content at the cinema are also hoovering up that content at home.
Certainly, I trooped out to my local multiplex for every Avengers movie (and for Thor Ragnarok), but I never watched Agents of Shield or Hawkeye at home. Sure, I'm a sample size of one, but I don't think I'm alone.
Of course, the only way to tell would be to see and compare the numbers for total box office receipts for The Marvels and total viewings by Disney+ subscribers of Ms Marvel and WandaVision, and Disney hasn't provided those numbers.
However, from the numbers that have been constructed (opening weeks of 1.6 million for WandaVision, and 0.78 million for Ms Marvel) it seems reasonable to infer that the majority of the cinema audience for The Marvels didn't watch WandaVision or Ms Marvel at home.
Our episode recap segments often end, "and then they punch each other for five minutes and the good guys lose until it's time for them to win."
Powers are often inconsistent... If you want to know the details, well, too bad: this is no longer that kind of show.
That's where the MCU is at now, and it didn't start with the Marvels: it goes back at least as far as the first Antman, where they carefully explain that shrunken objects maintain their mass and then immediately throw that rule out the window multiple times in the same movie.
All of which is to say that it's not a problem unique to the MCU, although this may be the first time it's been seen on this scale outside of comics and animation.
This is basically how I felt at the very end of The Marvels. Captain Marvel, assisted by two other superheroes, spends the best part of two hours struggling to defeat an adversary armed with an energy bangle and a big hammer. But, after beating her, she just pops into a dying star and gives it a quick jump-start!?! That's handy, no? Kind of renders all the punching and kicking a bit unnecessary...
I couldn't help thinking of the 'Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit' sketches from 'The Mitchell and Webb Show'.
I had completely forgotten Madame Webb was coming out this week. It currently has a Metacritic score of 34 on 11 reviews, and, in the article about the movie's release, the first review I saw was "Morbius was better".
Internet, fire up your meme cannons, there's a new target in town.
Am I going to have to watch Mobius so I can confirm if it is better than Madam Web? I am at lease kind of interested in Web.
Awww, I was looking forward to a NASA bio pic about James Webb's wife.
It will be interesting to see if the same people who were complaining that to understand The Marvels, you needed to watch a bunch of other movies and some Disney+ TV shows will also be making the same complaint for Deadpool & Wolverine, where you will have to watch a bunch of movies and some Disney+ TV shows.
I had completely forgotten Madame Webb was coming out this week. It currently has a Metacritic score of 34 on 11 reviews, and, in the article about the movie's release, the first review I saw was "Morbius was better".
Internet, fire up your meme cannons, there's a new target in town.
In the 30 minutes since I first posted, there are 8 more reviews, and the metascore is down to 30.
I have faith that Ryan Reynolds will oversee a good script, but I'm a bit disappointed that they are wrapping in the TVA. Unless there is a lot of exposition, that will involve a lot of background from Marvel TV.
I have faith that Ryan Reynolds will oversee a good script, but I'm a bit disappointed that they are wrapping in the TVA. Unless there is a lot of exposition, that will involve a lot of background from Marvel TV.
Honestly, I give it even odds the whole TVA thing is a misdirect and they are 5 minutes of the movie.
Even if not, the general multi-verse/timeline thing is so common that people seem ok with it as a general plot point.
However, the comparison between this and the Marvels is a fair point. Though having history across 30 years of movies does seem to make it easier to digest for some reason.
With the numbers involved i really think they don't care about the handful of people who's not seen everything related.
I have faith that Ryan Reynolds will oversee a good script, but I'm a bit disappointed that they are wrapping in the TVA. Unless there is a lot of exposition, that will involve a lot of background from Marvel TV.
Yea about that... the movie is showing like 6 or 7 writers. Sure most of them are tied to Reynolds, and some of this may be due to the strikes, but it's never a good sign to see a long list of writers with AND and not &
The "continuity lockout" problem is a bit of a catch-22. If the movies didn't integrate with the TV / streaming stuff, you wind up with a bunch of severely constrained "midquels" that can't actually do much of anything so that people who skipped it can watch the next movie unencumbered. But if they integrate too much, you wind up with moviegoers confused and/or angry that they're expected to do "homework."
You already see it anytime Hulk shows up. They can't do a standalone Hulk movie because of rights issues with Universal, so every time he shows up and his status quo has changed, it feels like there WAS a whole movie's worth of stuff that happened to him that nobody got to see. He can control his transformations now? Neat. He's Smart Hulk now? Sure, whatever, I'll buy that.
Or, like, Wanda and Vision went from being in the same movie but barely interacting to apparently dating to I guess they were the loves of each other's lives when we weren't looking? But it leads into a pretty good little story about grief and sitcoms so I guess I'll go with it.
Something tells me that the longer the MCU goes on the more of that "just go with it" it's going to require, which isn't inherently a problem, but it does mean that the individual stories need to be good enough to justify it.
Something tells me that the longer the MCU goes on the more of that "just go with it" it's going to require, which isn't inherently a problem, but it does mean that the individual stories need to be good enough to justify it.
And that, for me, is where they have been failing. The stories for the last few movies and TV shows have been pretty weak.
Pages